从艺术学校到硅谷：与乔尼·艾维爵士的对话

我对这次采访非常兴奋。在硅谷或更广泛的科技行业中，几乎没有人比 Johnny 更不需要介绍了。而且在我即将上台时，我突然意识到他几乎不需要姓氏。请欢迎 Johnny IV 爵士上台。

I'm very excited about this interview. There are few people in the valley or in the technology industry more broadly who need less of an introduction than Johnny. And it struck me as I was about to walk on here that he barely even needs a surname. Please welcome to the stage Sir Johnny IV.

好的，我们开始吧。那么，感谢你参加我们的节目。

Okay, let's do this. All right, so thank you for joining us.

我真的很想说，我无比感激和荣幸能来到这里。能和 Patrick 共度时光是一件大事。所以，谢谢你。

I would really love to say that I am unspeakably grateful and honored to be here. Spending any time with Patrick is a big deal. So, thank you.

嗯，我想从显而易见的地方开始。我的意思是，你没能到处走走看看，但你可以在这里看到一点，而且你在后台也有监视器等等。你觉得这个设计怎么样？

Well, I want to start in the obvious place. I mean, you didn't get to walk the floor and everything, but you can see a little bit here, and you had the monitor backstage and so forth. What do you think of the design?

很漂亮，不是吗？不，它非常……你知道，我很久没来这里了，我对这里有一些非常强烈而生动的记忆，但设计确实很漂亮。我来旧金山参加的第一个活动就是你设计的，后面还有水獭。那是 WWDC，我得回去查一下。我想是 05 年，也许是 06 年。但那是我来旧金山参加的第一个活动，实际上，我想说就是在这个 Moscone 的房间里。但实际上，John 能在这里，而我却被安排到了 overflow 房间，这可不是我的错。

It's lovely, isn't it? No, it's very... You know, I've not been here for a long time, and I have some very strong and vivid memories of being here, but no, the design's lovely. The first event I ever came to in San Francisco was one that you designed, where the otter behind. It was the WWDC in... I have to go back and check. I think it was 05, maybe it was 06. But that was the first event I came to in San Francisco, and it was actually, I want to say it was here in this room at Moscone. But actually, John got to be in here, but I was relegated to the overflow room, which was not my fault.

好的。说到这个，你 1992 年来到硅谷，对吗？

All right. So, speaking of that, you came to Silicon Valley in 1992. Is that right?

对。

That's right.

所以你还很年轻，但那是几年前了。几十年前。硅谷发生了怎样的变化？

So you're still very young, but that was a couple of years ago. A couple of decades ago. How has Silicon Valley changed?

嗯，Alan Kay 说软件行业和计算行业是一种流行文化，从某种意义上说，我们是非历史性的，我们不了解我们之前的思想、先例和事物。你知道，这是 Alan Kay 的观点。我不知道这是否正确，但我认为这是一个有趣的想法。当然，如果你问很多人，在许多行业中，伟人和创造者等等都是这些神圣的名字。但如果你问人们，你知道，谁发明了互联网，科技行业中的很多人并不清楚那段历史。我一直觉得这种现象很有趣。但既然你已经观察硅谷 33 年了，它发生了怎样的变化？

Well, Alan Kay says that the software industry and the computing industry is a pop culture in the sense that we are ahistorical and we don't understand the ideas and the antecedents and the things that came before us. And you know, that's Alan Kay's view. I don't know if it's right, but I thought it was an interesting idea. And certainly it's the case that if you ask people in many industries, the greats and the creators and so forth are these kind of big hallowed names. But if you ask people, you know, who invented the internet, a lot of people in the technology industry don't have a clear sense of that history. I've always found that kind of phenomenon interesting. But since you've now got to observe Silicon Valley for 33 years, how's it changed?

嗯，我想当我在艺术学校时，我在英国学习设计。我出生在伦敦，在东北部学习。我记得在最后一年发现了 Mac，遗憾的是，我希望更早发现。但我逐渐意识到一些我本应更早意识到的事情，那就是我们创造的东西证明了我们是谁。我们创造的东西描述了我们的价值观。它描述了我们的关注点。它优美而简洁地描述了我们的关注点。当我看到 Mac 时，这一点给我留下了深刻的印象。

Well, I think when I was at art school, I studied design in England. I was born in London and studied up in the northeast. And I remember discovering the Mac in my final year, sadly. I wish it had been earlier. But I came to realize something that I should have realized earlier, but what I realized was that what we make stands testament to who we are. And what we make describes our values. It describes our preoccupations. It describes beautifully, succinctly, our preoccupation. And this struck me so powerfully when I saw the Mac.

它是一种思维自行车吗？是这方面还是其他方面？

Was it a kind of bicycle for the mind? That aspect of it or something else?

每个部分都是。我非常清楚地感觉到一群有清晰价值观的原创思想家，完全痴迷于人和文化。你知道，你可以看一样东西，它要么告诉你它是为了在特定时间达到某个价格点而设计的，这样我就能赶上进度，我们可以悠闲地忏悔，而且它和我们希望的一样便宜。或者你可以尝试设计一些真正试图推动物种前进的东西。我非常清楚地感觉到是后者，这是由加州这个叛逆团体创造的，而且如此强大。我的意思是，我学的是工业设计。我没学技术，但我被清晰的价值观、决心和勇气深深打动，我认为这些价值观的体现让我想见这些人。我想出来。所以 89 年大学毕业后，我第一次出来。我不得不回去。这可能信息量太大了。

It was every part. I got a very clear sense of a group of original thinkers with clear values, completely obsessed with people and culture. You know, you can look at something and it can either tell you it was designed to meet a price point at a certain time so I hit the schedule, we can repent at our leisure, and it's as cheap as we hoped. Or you can try and design something that genuinely attempts to move the species on. And I had a very clear sense of the latter, that this was created by this renegade group in California, and so powerful. I mean, I studied industrial design. I didn't study technology, but I was so moved by the clear values and the resolve and the courage that I think enabled the embodiment of those values that I wanted to meet these people. I wanted to come out. So after college in '89, I first came out. I had to return. This is probably way too much information.

你只是在几个朋友中间。没错。这是一次小型亲密的炉边谈话。

You're among just a couple of friends. Exactly. It's a small intimate fireside chat.

嗯，有趣的是，我有工作承诺。我上大学有赞助，所以我必须回伦敦从事设计工作。我认为这给了我一种奇怪的自由。我非常害羞，我想如果我是为了找工作而出去见人，我会觉得非常焦虑，我想我不敢见人。正因为我没有目的，我想人们可能也更愿意见我，因为他们觉得我不想要什么。所以，为了敢于接近回答你的问题，我在 89 年、92 年最终搬出去时看到的是，我为 Apple 咨询了几年，然后他们说服我搬到旧金山，搬到 Apple 来。我所看到的，我认为是一种天真的欣快感，志同道合的人被清晰的价值观驱动，明确地为人类服务，聚集在一起，有些是小团体，有些是巨大的团体。但我确实相信有一种非常强烈的目标感，那个目标就是我们在这里是为了服务人类。

Well, the interesting thing was that I had a job commitment. I was sponsored through college, and so I had to go back to work in design in London. And there was a strange liberty I think that afforded me. I was impossibly shy, and I think if I'd been traveling out to meet people with the goal of getting a job, I would have found that so anxiety-making, I don't think I would have dared to meet people. And so because I had no agenda, I think also people were probably happier to meet me because they didn't think I wanted anything. And so to dare to get close to answering your question, what I saw in '89, '92 when I finally moved out, Apple, I consulted for Apple for a couple of years and then they persuaded me to move to San Francisco, to move to Apple here. What I saw I think was an innocent euphoria of like-minded people driven by values clearly in service of humanity, gathering together in some small groups, in some huge groups. But I do believe there was a very strong sense of purpose, and that purpose was we are here to serve the species.

那是在 92 年的 Apple，还是 92 年的科技行业，还是 92 年的湾区？

And was that at Apple in '92, or in the technology industry in '92, or in the Bay Area in '92?

这是个好问题。老实说，Patrick，我觉得到处都是。我感觉即使有竞争对手，即使我确实感觉到我们作为仆人的地位和原则性服务的基本意识。

That's a great question. I think honestly, Patrick, it was everywhere. I felt that even though there were competitors, even though I did feel that there was an underlying sense of our place as servants and of principled service.

那什么变了呢？

And what's changed?

嗯，我不认为完全是这样。我认为有些议程是关于企业议程的。我认为，这听起来有点刺耳，但它是由金钱和权力驱动的。而且我认为，如果你知道如何通过增量逐渐达到某个地方，我认为如果你把今天和 92 年进行鲜明对比，那将是一个合理的评估。

Well, I don't think that's the case entirely. I think there are agendas that are about corporate agendas. I think, and this will sound a little harsh, but it is driven by money and power. And I think if you know how you tend to get somewhere by increments, I think if you were to starkly contrast today with '92, I think that would be a reasonable assessment.

对于任何创造软件、创造产品、创造公司的人来说，你认为今天已经偏离的中心或北极星是什么，或者人们应该坚持什么来避免这些失败模式？

And for anybody creating software, creating a product, creating a company, what's the center or the north star that you perceive as having gotten askew today, or the thing that people should hold firm to in order to avoid some of these failure modes?

是你刚才提到的有清晰的目标感吗？还是说有一种服务导向？你怎么看，核心是什么？

Is it what you just mentioned having a clear sense of purpose? Is it sort of having a kind of servant orientation? How would you think, what is at the heart of it?

我认为需要有基础价值观，以及理解我们在这一切中的位置，还要有清晰的目标感，那就是赋能和激励人们。你知道，帕特里克和我刚才还在讨论做工具的人，我非常清楚并且自豪，那就是我的职业，也是我的实践。我喜欢推动事物前进，这意味着创新。我对人们把创新等同于与众不同或打破常规很有意见。我没有兴趣为了打破而打破。我不认为打破常规然后快速前进会让我们变得更好——那只会让我们周围一片狼藉。我感兴趣的是，当东西被打破是因为创造了更好的东西。但我认为，人性的一部分是我们假设进步和创新是不可避免的，但事实并非如此。你必须有一种潜在的信念作为燃料，然后我们需要一个想法和愿景，然后有决心把那个愿景变成现实，不仅是为我们自己，而是可以广泛分享的。

I think there need to be foundational values and an understanding of our place in all of this, and having a clear sense of the goal, which is to enable and inspire people. I mean, you know, Patrick and I were talking just a while ago about being tool makers, and I'm very clear and very proud that that's my occupation and that's my practice. I love trying to move things forward, which means innovating. I have a real issue with people confusing innovation with being different or breaking stuff. I have no interest in breaking stuff for the sake of breaking stuff. I don't think breaking stuff and moving on quickly leaves us well—it leaves us surrounded by carnage. I'm interested if things get broken as a consequence of actually creating something better. But I think one of the things that is part of the human condition is that we assume that progress and innovation is sort of inevitable, but it's not. You have to have this underlying conviction which is fuel, and then we need an idea and a vision, and then the resolve to make that vision something that is real, that is not just for us but that we can share broadly.

你曾经对我说过一个短语：真诚地提升物种。

You once used a phrase with me: sincerely elevate the species.

是的，我记得很多次，而且幸运的是我不是在说过去式，但我确实记得特定的周日下午在工作。实际上，我记得在包装上处理一些荒谬的细节，而且是以一种如此琐碎的方式——我的意思是，和你们做的事情相比，这看起来太琐碎了——但我非常清楚地意识到，在设计某个解决方案时，比如我们如何管理盒子里的线缆，设计那个，我知道数百万人会接触这个小标签，我可以让线缆容易解开。抱歉，这真是个太琐碎的例子，不是吗？

Yeah, I remember many times, and fortunately I'm not talking in the past tense, but I do remember particular Sunday afternoons working. Actually, I remember working on some absurd details with packaging, and in such a trivial way—I mean, this compared to what you guys do will seem so trivial—but I had such a clear awareness that in designing a certain solution, for example how we managed a cable that's in a box, that designing that, I knew that millions of people would engage with this little tab, and I can either make the cable an easy thing to unwrap. Sorry, that is such a trivial example, isn't it?

但显然你认为你可以用节省的秒数来描述那个目的——你知道，那从每条线缆的拆封中节省 5 秒，然后乘以数亿。但我从你那里感觉到，那不是你这样做的原因。不是这种琐碎的功利性乘法和计算。对你来说，其中有某种精神性的东西。那精神性的东西是什么？

But clearly you think that you can describe the purpose of that in seconds saved—you know, that shaves 5 seconds off the unwrapping of every cable and multiply it across hundreds of millions. But I get the sense from you that's not why you do it. It's not this trivial utilitarian multiplication and calculation. There's something spiritual in it for you. What's the spiritual thing?

我认为精神性的东西是，我相信当有人打开那个盒子，拿出那条线缆，他们觉得有人在乎我，我认为那是精神性的。而且我认为这是一种方式——我知道我在这里有很好的同伴。我知道曾经让我沮丧的是那种解决了一个功能需求，然后我们就完了的感觉。但当然那不够。那不是进化社会或进化物种的特征。所以那个周日下午，我本当和我的孩子们出去，而我却在担心这个，我确实感到一种联系和兴奋，因为有人将要体验他们还不知道存在的东西。即使那是小事，它确实来自爱和关怀的地方。史蒂夫谈到过这个。我的意思是，他比我更有口才地谈到过，但他说当你用爱和关怀制作东西时，即使你为之制作的人，你不知道他们的故事，他们不知道你的故事，你甚至永远不会和他们握手。但当他们使用你制作的产品时，那是一种方式——史蒂夫表达的方式，我觉得太美了。他说那是向物种表达感激的一种方式。我认为那是极其深思熟虑、美丽和真实的宣言。

I think the spiritual thing is that I believe that when somebody unwrapped that box and took out that cable and they thought somebody gave a damn about me, I think that's a spiritual thing. And I think it's a way—and I know I'm in good company here. I know that what used to depress me was this sense that solving a functional imperative, then we're done. But of course that's not enough. That's not the characteristic of an evolved society or an evolved species. And so that Sunday afternoon when I really should have been out with my boys and I'm worrying about this, I did feel a connection and an excitement that somebody was going to experience something that they don't even know exists yet. And even though it was a small thing, it really did come genuinely from a place of love and of care. And Steve spoke about this. I mean, he spoke about it way more eloquently than I can, but he talked about when you make something with love and with care. Even though the people that you've made it for, you don't know their story. They don't know your story. You'll never even shake their hands. But when they use the product that you've made, it's a way—and the way Steve expressed it, I thought was so beautiful. He said it's a way of expressing our gratitude to the species. And I thought that was such an incredibly thoughtful and beautiful and authentic declaration.

所以当人们谈论你的设计，或者你在苹果时期的设计时，他们经常提到极简主义、简洁、清晰和功能，你知道，诸如此类，这当然都是真的。但对我来说非常引人注目的是，其中有多少似乎编织了某种幽默感或喜悦。比如像皮克斯台灯的 iMac。还有彩色糖果 iMac。甚至还有 iPod 袜子。喜悦在设计中的角色是什么？

So when people talk about your design or design that occurred in your time at Apple, they often refer to minimalism, simplicity, the clarity and function, you know, things like this, and that's all certainly true. But part of what's very striking to me is how much of it seems to have some kind of sense of humor or joy woven into it. Like there's the iMac like the Pixar lamp. There's the lozenge iMacs in their technicolor. There were even iPod socks. What's the role of joy in design?

嗯，我认为这是个非常好的问题，因为我认为人们犯的错误之一是，他们认为简单的产品——你知道，简洁就是去除杂乱——对我来说，那意味着你最终只会得到一个整洁的产品，但却是那种干瘪的、没有灵魂的产品。

Well, I think that's such a good question, because I think one of the mistakes that people make is that they think simple products—you know, simplicity is about removing clutter—and to me that means you just would end up with an uncluttered product, but a kind of desiccated, soulless product.

实际上，那是个美丽的描述：干瘪的、没有灵魂的产品。我认为很多极简主义最终就是这样，或者现代主义最终表现出来就是这样。

Actually, that's a beautiful description: a desiccated, soulless product. I think that's what a lot of minimalism ends up being, or modernism ends up manifesting as.

我的目标和我们的集体目标一直是把秩序带入混乱，去尝试——但对我来说，简洁是试图简洁地表达某物的本质、它的目的以及它在我们生活中的角色。我实际上觉得，我意识到的是，我认为总的来说在硅谷，以及在我们共同的行业里，喜悦和幽默一直缺失。这让我有点在意。我们都在开发的产品，它们很复杂，不是吗？有时喜悦被误认为是琐碎。但我想我总是回到——我不知道你怎么样——但我总是回到非常清楚的一点，即我的心态和我在实践中的状态最终会体现在作品中。所以如果我充满焦虑，作品就会那样。所以我认为在我们的实践中保持希望、乐观和喜悦，并以这种方式对待彼此和同事，我实际上认为产品最终会那样。

My goal and our goal collectively has been to bring order to chaos, to try and—but simplicity to me is trying to succinctly express the essence of something and its purpose and its role in our life. I actually think that something that I feel conscious of is that I think generally in the valley and generally in our shared industry, I think joy and humor has been missing. And that's something that weighed on me a bit. And the products that we're all developing, they're complicated, aren't they? And sometimes joy gets confused with being trivial. But I think I always go back—I don't know about you—but I always go back to being very clear that my state of mind and how I am in my practice ultimately is going to be embodied in the work. And so if I'm consumed with anxiety, that's how the work will end up. And so I think to be hopeful and optimistic and joyful in our practice, and be that way in how we relate to each other and our colleagues, I actually think that's how the products will end up.

有一个很棒的报告，是一个叫丹尼尔·库克的人讲的，关于如何构建一个拯救公主的企业应用。但他解构了超级马里奥，显然核心目的是拯救公主，然后从标准企业应用设计的角度来处理，并整理了一些如何进行的例子。他抨击这种方法并批评它，因为他说这种设计未能认识到用户是一个人。人想学习，人可以改变。软件对人产生影响，你必须非常认真地对待这一点。

There's a wonderful talk by a guy called Daniel Cook about how to build a princess-saving enterprise application. But he deconstructs Super Mario, and obviously the core purpose is to save the princess, and sort of approaches it from a standard enterprise application design standpoint, and puts together some examples of how one might go about it. And he impugns this approach and critiques it, because he says that this kind of design fails to recognize that the user is a person. The person wants to learn, the person can change. The software has an effect on the person, and you have to take that very seriously.

你用的这些词——赋能、启发、爱、关怀、感恩、喜悦——它们似乎来自一种对人的理解，认为人是活生生的、在变化的，而软件实际上并没有改变他们。

And the words you're using—enable, inspire, love, care, gratitude, joy—they seem to come from a conception of the person as somebody who's living and changing, and the software in fact hasn't affected them.

这是帕特里克和我过去谈过的事，也是我很想试着描述的东西，你得帮我，因为我觉得它非常重要。我在苹果花了很多年才意识到这一点，但我相信当你身处一大群人为一个共同目标开发产品时，这种效应就会出现。其中发生的一件事是，我们从小到大通常都想与人建立联系、想变得善于社交。我们发现自己身处一个工作环境，希望里面有各种各样的人。有趣的一点是，如果我们一起开发产品，就会有这样一种现象——我注意到了，而且在我试图对这种现象为何发生给出更宽容的解释之前，它曾让我非常恼火——那就是人们通常喜欢谈论那些容易用数字衡量的产品属性。所以如果你想想产品讨论中什么会占主导，你最终会谈论进度、成本、速度、重量——任何你能普遍认同 6 比 2 大的东西。我理解为什么。但问题是，我的贡献以及设计师和其他创意人员的贡献，很多都无法轻易用数字衡量。或者更贬低人的是，它可能只是被说成“那是你的看法”。那就像对你的心脏外科医生说“那是你的看法”，然后你自己上手。所以我逐渐意识到——我认为我给出的更宽容的解释是——我们这样做是因为我们想彼此建立联系，是因为我们想包容。但接下来危险的事情发生了，我想鼓励——我非常希望这听起来不傲慢——但我真的鼓励你们思考这一点，因为我深深震撼于它有多重要。随之而来的是一个阴险的谎言：我们花所有时间谈论那些属性，是因为我们容易衡量它们。因此，这就是唯一重要的。而那是谎言。它重要，但只是部分真理。而设计师和其他创意人员能为体验或产品贡献的一切——能让它用起来愉悦、快乐，同时也更高效——如果它愉悦又快乐，东西往往会被更多地使用——这些都同样重要。

It's something Patrick and I have talked about in the past, and this is something I'd love to try and describe, and you'll have to help me because I think it's really important. It took me many years at Apple to realize this, but it's an effect that I believe occurs when you're in larger groups of people involved in the common cause of developing a product. One of the things that happens is, generally we grow up wanting to be able to relate to people and wanting to be sociable. We find ourselves in a work environment with hopefully a diverse range of people. And one of the things that's interesting is that if we're developing products together, there is this—I noticed this and it used to infuriate me before I came to try to have a slightly more generous interpretation of why this happens—that people generally want to talk about product attributes that you can measure easily with a number. So if you think about what would dominate the conversations in product discussions, you will end up talking about schedule, cost, speed, weight—anything where you can generally agree that six is a bigger number than two. And I understand why. But the problem is much of my contribution and the contribution of designers and other creatives, you can't measure easily with a number. Or it gets even more demeaning: it can be just, "Well, that's your opinion." Well, that's like telling your heart surgeon, "Well, that's your opinion," and you having a go yourself. So what I came to realize—and I think the more generous interpretation I had was—we do that because we want to try to relate to each other. We do that because we want to be inclusive. But then this is the dangerous thing that happens, and I would encourage—I desperately hope this doesn't sound arrogant—but I would really encourage you to think about this because I've been so struck by how important this is. The insidious lie follows: we spend all our time talking about attributes because we can easily measure them. Therefore, this is all that matters. And that's a lie. It's important, but it's a partial truth. And all of the stuff that designers and other creatives can contribute to an experience or to a product—that can make it delightful to use and joyful to use, as well as more productive—if it's delightful and joyful, things tend to be used more—are equally important.

你说的话一点也不显得傲慢，因为当你有一口优美的英国口音时，你什么都能蒙混过关。那么，我们谈到了设计的重要性和影响力，但如果稍微转向实践，执行速度与随之而来的质量之间是否存在权衡？

Nothing you say sounds arrogant, because when you have a beautiful British accent, then you can get away with anything. So, we're speaking about the importance and the impact of design, but if we shift a little bit to the practice, is there a trade-off between speed of execution and ensuing quality?

有时候有。

Sometimes.

我本来希望你说没有。

I was hoping you'd say no.

我当然知道有很多绝佳的例子——我会把这个问题重新定义为关于动机的问题。我认为通常发生的情况是，当我们被迫做出选择时，我会变得好斗，说“不，我们不必选择，我们可以两者兼得”。这很难——我知道你们听过很多次——但质量、速度、成本和其他东西很难同时做到。但我认为高效工作有一种美感，我们可以称之为速度。我知道我们俩都非常注意我们使用的词语，因为它们影响我们的思维方式，而我们用来框定问题的词语是最重要的。所以我会这样框定问题：我们如何以惊人的效率创造出令人叹为观止的质量？

I absolutely know there are fabulous examples where—I would reframe the question as being about motivation. I think what tends to happen is when we're put in this situation of having to choose, I would get belligerent and say no, we don't have to choose, we can do both. It's very hard—I know you guys have heard this lots—but it's hard to do quality and speed and cost and other things. But I think there is a beauty to working efficiently, and I think we can say that's speed. I know we both pay a great deal of attention to the words that we use because they affect the way we think, and the words that we use to frame a problem are some of the most important. And so I would frame the issue as: how can we work wonderfully efficiently to create something with breathtaking quality?

随着组织成长，还有另一种紧张关系，也许对在座各位中的许多人来说——当然这是我经历过的——在最早的日子里，只有你一个人，然后可能还有几个人，但你能大致掌握正在发生的一切，你觉得至少有机会行使你的品味、判断或意见，无论问题是什么。然后也许事情继续扩大，在某个时刻，它变得远远超出任何一个人的规模和范围。然后出现这种断裂，有些事情发生了，我从未看到，我从未有机会参与意见。我不知道我对此有何感受。我不会做那边那件事。你如何处理这个？我的意思是，你在苹果时，苹果可不是小公司，尤其是在后期。你如何处理这个？而且我认为这既是规模和范围的问题，但仅仅说“这里这个东西不符合我的品味”难道不是本质上不合理吗？

As organizations grow, there's another kind of tension where maybe for various people here in the audience—certainly this is something I've experienced—in the earliest days it's just you, and then maybe a couple of other people, but you can kind of keep abreast of everything that's happening and you feel like you have the opportunity at least to exercise your taste or judgment or opinion, whatever the issue might be. And then perhaps things continue to scale, and at some point it becomes far beyond the scale and scope of any single human. And then there's this discontinuity where there are things that happened that I never saw, I never had the chance to weigh in on. I don't know how I feel about it. I wouldn't have done that thing over there. How do you deal with this? I mean, Apple was not a small company when you were there, certainly not in the later years. How do you deal with this? And I think it's both the scale and scope, but also doesn't it feel intrinsically unreasonable to simply say that this thing here doesn't accord with my taste?

我认为这样说非常合理。这非常非常难，不是吗？我认为我所拥有的——我确实相信我们会经历章节或季节，而痛苦的部分是一个章节的结束和下一个章节的开始，那时我们必须调整，改变我们的方法。我认为有一件事显然行不通，那就是假设我们开始的方式就是我们结束的方式。所以我认为要非常清楚我们处于不断变化的状态，并且要弄清楚我不会妥协什么。我认为那就是非常清晰地专注于你的原则、价值观和动机。我认为当我想“我为什么那样做？动机变了吗？”时，警钟总是会为我敲响。那是我真正对自己感到不安和失望并重新开始的时候。但我确实认为，如果我们的动机和价值观保持不变，我们会找到方法成为我们天生就是的控制狂。

I think it's very reasonable to say that. It's very, very hard, isn't it? I think what I have—I do believe that we go through chapters or seasons, and the painful part is the conclusion of one and the beginning of the next where we have to adjust and we change our approach. I think the one thing obviously it will not work to assume how we started is how we're going to finish. So I think being very clear that we are in a constant state of flux, and it's trying to figure out what I'm not going to compromise. And I think that's the very clear focus on your principles and your values and your motivations. I think the alarm bells always go off for me when I think, "Why did I do that? Has a motivation shifted?" And that's when I've really been upset with myself and disappointed with myself and reset. But I do think if our motivations and values remain the same, we will find ways to be the control freaks we were born to be.

当然，我的意思是，或者我们可以说关心得尽可能多——但让我们诚实一点。对于你领导或参与的设计团队，有哪些仪式？

And which of course—I mean, or we can say care as much as we—but let's be honest. For a design team that you're leading or participating in, what are the rituals?

嗯，其中一件事——我认为对我来说，没有什么比创意团队更重要。并且明确声明这是我的贡献。因此我需要成为一个非凡团队的一员。但这只是入场券，不是吗？所以你可以拥有合适的人，但实践——我们的流程、我们的实践、我们的规程——非常重要。

Well, one of the things—I think there's nothing more important to me than the creative team. And declaring that and being clear about this is my contribution. And therefore I need to be part of an extraordinary team. But that's just the price of admission, isn't it? So you can have the people, but practice—our process, our practice, the protocols—are so important.

多年来，我一直在做这件事，带领小型创意团队已经超过 30 年了。以下是我发现的一些重要的事情。如果你像我之前描述的那样，处理的是无法用数字衡量的概念，处理的是那些总是从一个想法开始，然后进行试探性讨论的想法，我意识到的一件事就是，这些空灵的想法、这些脆弱的概念是多么岌岌可危。我认为，一个真正互相信任的小团队是根本性的重要。信任、彼此关爱、互相关心。如果你关心彼此，那么你就有可能真正去倾听。扼杀无数想法的东西——我在一些地方工作过，那里就发生过这种情况——就是人们急于说话、急于被听到。没有什么比……我认为扼杀大多数想法的是那些急于表达观点的人。而且我们要明确一点：观点不是想法。我本来想说些很粗鲁的话，但我不说了。不过你可以把这段剪掉。但是，保持安静、去倾听——让我感到恐惧的一件事是，我知道我错过了一些真正很棒的想法，它们来自一个安静的地方，来自一个安静的人。这真的让我害怕，因为我不知道我错过了什么。

Over many years, I mean, I've been doing this and leading small creative teams for over 30 years. These are some of the things that I found important. If you're dealing, as I was describing earlier, with concepts that you can't measure with numbers, if you're dealing with ideas that always start off as a thought and then a tentative discussion, one of the things I realize is just how ethereal thoughts, these fragile concepts, are precarious. And I think a small team of people that really trust each other is fundamentally important. Trust and love each other, care about each other. If you care about each other, then you might be in danger of actually listening. The thing that just kills so many ideas—and I've worked in places where this happens—is people being desperate to speak and be heard. There's nothing like... what kills most ideas, I think, are people desperate to express an opinion. And let's be very clear: opinions aren't ideas. I was going to say something really rude then, but I won't. But you can cut it from the video. But to be quiet and to listen—one of the things that terrifies me is that I know I've missed really amazing ideas that came from a quiet place, from a quiet person. And that really scares me because I don't know what I've missed.

所以，说到仪式，我认为做一些让我们的关系变得真实而深刻的事情很重要。我发现的一件事，我认为非常重要——我们在 Apple 尝试了很多东西，而我尝试的大多数事情都没有成功。但有少数几件让我兴奋的事情变得非常强大。我认为一个很好的实践就是为彼此制作东西。让这成为你与团队日常联系的一部分，思考你能为彼此做些什么——这会让你处于一个美好的境地。它让你更担心他们而不是你自己。它让你变得脆弱，也让他们心存感激。这已经很多了，不是吗？想想我说的话——那开始定义一种相当美好的文化。

So, talking about the rituals, I think doing things that mean our relationship is authentic and deep. One of the things that I discovered that I think is really important—we tried a lot of things at Apple, and most of the things that I tried didn't work out. But a few things I was excited about grew to be very powerful. I think one practice that is very good is to make things for each other. For that to become part of your daily way of connecting to your team, to think about what you can make for each other—it puts you in a lovely place. It makes you more worried about them than yourself. It makes you vulnerable, and it makes them grateful. And that's a lot, isn't it? Just think about what I said—that starts to define quite a lovely culture.

与此相关的是，有一件事让我印象深刻：Paul Graham 说“做出人们想要的东西”，而 Jony Ive 说“为彼此制作东西”。是的，这就是我们做的，不是吗？我们只是在非常个人的层面上实践我们在专业层面上所做的事情。在座的各位——我想几乎每一个人——我们都在为他人制作东西。所以也许……我不知道。“做出人们想要的东西”感觉像是一种商业策略，而你说的“为彼此制作东西”听起来像是一种团队策略。

And connected to that, something I was really struck by: Paul Graham says 'make things people want,' and Jony Ive says 'make things for each other.' Yes, it's... I mean, that's what we do, isn't it? All we're doing is at a very personal level practicing what we're doing at our professional level. All of us here—I guess almost every single person here—we're about making something for other people. So perhaps... I don't know. 'Make things people want' feels like a business strategy, whereas what you're saying sounds like 'make things for each other' is a team strategy.

嗯，作为一个团队，例如，我觉得很棒的一件事是，每个周五早上，我要求设计团队中的一个人为整个团队做早餐，我们轮流来。我们有很多……为彼此制作东西。

Well, as a team, for example, one of the things I thought was great was that every Friday morning, I asked that one person on the design team would make breakfast for the whole team, and we took it in turns. And we had so... make things for each other.

我在想象原型 iPhone，但不是，也可以是培根、培根和鸡蛋。

I'm imagining prototype iPhones, but no, it can also be bacon, bacon and eggs.

我说的是玉米片和牛奶。我的意思是，有些食物我们做得非常好，有些则非常糟糕。但它们在动机上都来自同一个地方。还有一件相关的事情，我惊讶于它的力量——抱歉——就是我们轮流让设计团队来我们家里，我们会花一天时间在家里工作。这件事我可能想得太多了，但它是一种非常强大的方式，鼓励我们在实践中做好工作，并建设团队。

I'm talking corn flakes and milk. I mean, we soared to dizzy heights with some of the food, and some of it was so shocking. But it all came from the same place in terms of motivation. And something connected that I was surprised at how powerful it was—excuse me—was that we would take it in turns to have the design team come to our homes, and we would spend a day working in our home. This is something I probably thought way too much about, but it was a very powerful way of encouraging us in our practice to do good work and in building the team.

而且我认为，首先在如何看待彼此方面有一个有趣的动态。主人——这有点像我们为彼此制作东西时——主人会有点焦虑，担心自己的软装会被评判。我的意思是，你知道有人来你家是什么感觉。会有一种自我意识，当然我会感到尴尬和焦虑，我不认为这总是不健康的。然后，你招待的客人会比他们只是涌进会议室时表现得更好。然后你有了环境——如果你为人们设计，我的意思是，在座有谁真的想在会议室里待着？我想不出比这更无灵魂、更压抑的地方了。我总觉得这很有趣：想想你坐的椅子和你的感受之间的关系。你们没有人会坐在这把椅子上看电视。你不会选择坐在这把椅子上，除非是为了听 John 和 Patrick 讲话。所以我不确定我们是这次活动的吸引力所在。但我认为有一个重要的点：如果你为人们设计，而你在某人的客厅里，坐在他们的沙发上或地板上，你的速写本放在他们的咖啡桌上，你当然会以不同的方式思考，不是吗？你的关注点、你的思绪飘向何方，都与你坐在典型的公司会议室里截然不同。

And I think there's an interesting dynamic first of all in terms of how we regard each other. The host—this is a bit like when we make something for one another—the host is slightly anxious and concerned about the potential judgment of their soft furnishings. I mean, you know what it's like when you have somebody come to your house. There is a self-consciousness, and certainly an awkwardness I feel and an anxiety, and I don't think that's always unhealthy. And then the guests who you are hosting are on better behavior than if they were all just trundling into a conference room. And then you've got the context—if you're designing for people, I mean, who here would actually want to spend time in a conference room? I can't think of a more soulless and depressing place. I always think it's funny: think about the relationship between the chair you're sitting on and how you feel. None of you would sit watching TV on these chairs. You wouldn't choose to sit on this chair unless it was to listen to John and Patrick. So I'm not sure that we're the attraction at this particular event. But I think there is an important point: if you're designing for people and you're in someone's living room, sat on their sofa or sat on their floor, and your sketchbook is on their coffee table, of course you think differently, don't you? Your preoccupation, where your mind wanders, is so different than if you're sat in a typical corporate conference room.

美是主观的还是客观的？我们现在来问一些更简单的问题。

Is beauty subjective or objective? We now get to easier questions.

是的，我认为两者兼而有之。我认为实用性和功能性——如果某样东西不起作用，它就是丑陋的。当人们试图在实用性和美学之间建立一种虚假的对立时，我总是感到沮丧。当我设计过某样东西，或者参与设计过某样不起作用的东西时，我不在乎它看起来怎么样。它就是丑陋的。我认为更难的是当我们谈到品味问题时。设计一直是一件困难的事情，因为每个人都很容易有自己的观点。每个人都有。但这并不意味着每个观点都有同样的分量。我认为这是一个相对有力的说法，因为如果你学习、学习、再学习设计——虽然我认识一些学了又学设计但品味很差的人。所以，我不知道。是的，这是一个好问题。

Yeah, I think it's a bit of both. I think utility and function—if something doesn't work, it's ugly. I've always gotten frustrated when people try to set up a false opposition between utility and aesthetics. When I've designed something or been involved in the design of something that doesn't work, I don't care what it looks like. It's ugly. I think the tougher thing is when we get on to the issues of taste. Design has always been a difficult thing because it's very easy for everybody to have an opinion. Everybody does. It just doesn't mean every opinion has the same weight. And I think that's a relatively robust statement, in that if you've studied and studied and studied design—although I know people who've studied and studied design with terrible taste. So, I don't know. Yeah, it's a good question.

好的，Christopher Alexander 说过，在两个物体、两个选择或两条道路之间，你应该选择那个感觉更人性化的。

Okay, so Christopher Alexander said that between two objects or two choices or two paths, the one that feels more humane is the one that you should choose.

但物体中这种人性感，比美更能作为指引，因为美可能会把你带入更主观的领域。这让你有共鸣吗，还是你觉得这听起来很疯狂？

But that this kind of sense of humanity in the object is a better guide than beauty, which perhaps pulls you into more subjective territory. Does that resonate at all, or do you think that sounds crazy?

不，我觉得绝对是这样。而且我认为，人们——我觉得大多数公司都在居高临下地对待消费者。我认为用户其实非常成熟。而且我觉得有美的问题，有人性的问题。我还觉得，这又回到我之前说的，我对史蒂夫和苹果团队的感受，看着第一台 Mac，你能感受到用心。我之前也试着谈过这个。我确实相信，而且我希望我有实证证据，但我确实相信我们有感知用心的能力。在服务中这很容易，因为你面对的是人，你直接感受到用心。但当它是间接的，通过一个物体，通过一个软件，那就更复杂了。但我想如果你说你能感知到不用心，你可能就更能理解了。所以我认为，相信你也能感知到用心，这是合理的。而且我非常努力，对完成产品的内部充满热情。我说的完成，是指我们设计了所有东西，我们关心所有东西。而且我相信你们很多人都听过那个说法，一个伟大的木匠会完成抽屉的背面，即使它不太可能被看到。但同样，我认为我们作为人进化程度的标志，就是我们在没人看到时做什么。而且我认为这很有代表性，它是我们真实面目的有力标志。而且如果我们的工作只停留在表面，我会被困扰，我肚子里会有一种挥之不去的感觉，觉得我们只是在做表面功夫。

No, I think that's absolutely the case. And I think that people—I think generally most companies patronize consumers. I think users are actually very sophisticated. And I think there are issues of beauty, of humanity. I also think, and this goes back to the first thing I was saying about my sense of Steve and the Apple team, looking at the first Mac, that you sense care. And I've tried to talk about this before. I really do believe, and I wish I had empirical evidence, but I do believe that we have this ability to sense care. It's easy in a service because you confront care because you confront the person. When it's vicarious, when it's via an object, when it's via a piece of software, it's more complex. But I think you might understand it more if I said you sense carelessness. And so I think it's reasonable to believe that you also know care and you sense care. And I worked very hard and felt passionately about finishing the inside of products. And when I mean finishing, I mean we designed everything and we cared about everything. And I'm sure many of you have heard the bit about a great cabinet maker finishing the back of a drawer, even though it's unlikely it will be seen. But in the same way, I think a mark of how evolved we are as people is what we do when no one sees. And I think that's indicative. It's a powerful marker of who we truly are. And I would be haunted by, if all we did was the outside, I would have this nagging feeling in my tummy that we were just being superficial.

你之前在这个讨论中提到了现代主义，而我一直在试图调和一个关于现代主义的谜题，也许你能帮我。很多早期现代主义是故意丑陋的。比如杜尚的小便池，甚至毕加索的作品——它是不和谐的，对吧？它肯定不是古典意义上的美。然后这个项目还有政治色彩，格罗皮乌斯在宣言中说包豪斯是一场社会主义运动。而你最初接受的是包豪斯设计的训练，对吧？

So you mentioned modernism a little bit earlier in this discussion, and there's a puzzle that I've been trying to reconcile around modernism that maybe you can help me with. So much early modernism was kind of deliberately ugly. Like you have the Duchamp fountain, and you have even Picasso's work—it's dissonant, right? It's certainly not classically beautiful. And then you had this political valence to the program, and Gropius said that Bauhaus was a socialist movement in the manifesto. And you were originally trained in Bauhaus design, right?

是的，对。

Yes, yeah.

所以有这种——你也展示了这种调性，对吧？但苹果的产品和你设计的产品都非常美，而苹果不是社会主义事业。所以这是怎么回事？我特别想弄清楚的是：现代主义中是否有一种倾向，故意追求不和谐，甚至丑陋，或者为了震惊人们？而现在你离开了苹果，有了些距离，你怎么看待这一切？你对现代主义的看法是什么？

So there's this kind of—and you've shown the tonality and all this stuff, right? But then the Apple products and the products that you designed are very beautiful, and Apple is not a socialist undertaking. So what's going on here? The particular thing I'm trying to figure out is: was there a strain to modernism where it was intentionally trying to be dissonant, or even ugly, or to shock people? And how maybe now with some remove, you're no longer at Apple, how do you view that whole thing? What's your take on modernism?

这是个好问题。我认为往往发生的是，在一个运动开始时，无论是设计运动还是艺术运动，都有那种令人难以置信的能量——我的意思是，从定义上讲，如果它标志着一个运动的开始，就有能量。而且我认为美是演化的。美需要时间。而且在能量开始时，往往是爆炸性的，没有时间。我敢推测，如果我们说的是纯艺术，人们会说他们没有时间。他们不想被美的概念分心。所以我认为当然，如果很多现代主义是由对新材料的兴奋所驱动，你的痴迷就是操纵那种新材料。有一件事——我不确定你们有多少人了解包豪斯，但这是德国的一场运动。但你们会知道——它涵盖了从纯艺术到家具到建筑。帕特里克提到了沃尔特·格罗皮乌斯，一个不可思议的运动。但你们最熟悉的可能是像布劳耶椅或塞斯卡椅那样的椅子，它们是弯曲的抛光钢镀铬管——那种弯曲的椅子。所以有趣的是，这些人刚刚弄清楚了如何弯曲管子。所以他们做了什么？他们弯曲了管子。这就是为什么所有家具都是弯曲管子家具。所以我认为，如果我弄清楚了，我也会这么做，因为当你弯曲管子时，它们往往会扭结，而他们想出了把弹簧放进管子的方法。所以你当然会跑开，尽可能多地弯曲管子。美可能不在你的脑海里。

That's a great question. I think what tends to happen is very often at the beginning of a movement, whether it's a design or art movement, there is that incredible energetic—I mean, in a way, by definition, if it marks the beginning of a movement, there is energy. And I think often beauty evolves. Beauty takes time. And very often at the beginning of an energy, it's an explosion and there's not time. I would dare presume that certainly if we're talking about fine art, people would say they have no time. They don't want to be distracted by concepts of beauty. So I think for sure, if a lot of modernism was driven by the heady excitement about new materials, your obsession was the manipulation of that new material. One thing—I'm not sure how many of you know about Bauhaus, but this was a movement in Germany. But what you will know—it ranged from fine art to furniture to architecture. Patrick mentioned Walter Gropius, and an incredible movement. But what you would probably be most familiar with would be chairs like the Breuer chair or the Cesca chair, which were polished steel chrome-plated tubes that are bent—those sort of bent chairs. So what's interesting there is these guys had just figured out how to bend tubes. And so what did they do? They bent tubes. And that's why all the furniture is bent tube furniture. So I think that's what I would have done if I'd figured it out, because when you bend tubes they tend to kink, and they'd figured out this way of putting springs into tubes. So of course you run away and you'd bend as many tubes as you could get your hands on. Beauty probably wasn't at the front of your mind.

所以当我看着你的作品——我们还没有谈到 LoveFrom，虽然也许你想给人们一个简短总结，说明你怎么看待它，那可能会有帮助——但当我看着你更近期的作品，以及 LoveFrom 所做的一些事情时，我把它看作是乔尼的装饰时代。苹果是那么精简、裸露，被还原到本质。而现在我看到——也许这是我的误解——但现在你更好奇尝试其他风格。这是真的吗？

So when I look at your work—and we haven't yet talked about LoveFrom, although maybe if you want to give people a short summary of how you think about that, that might be helpful—but when I look at your more recent work and some of what LoveFrom has done, I see it as Jony's ornament era. Where Apple was so stripped down and bare, reduced to the essence. And now I see that—maybe this is a misapprehension—but now you're more curious to try other styles. Is that true?

我觉得这是个可爱的观察。是的。我觉得我离开苹果已经将近六年了。我的目标是建立我能组建的最非凡的创意团队。我们大约有 50 到 60 人。很多设计师我都合作了几十年，这意味着我在苹果时就和他们一起工作。但这是一个非常多元化的团队。所以这是一个由工业设计师、平面设计师、用户界面设计师、建筑师、字体设计师、音乐家、声音设计师组成的团队。而且我认为也许你指的是，我们的用处，或者我们合作的人，现在是一个非常多元化的群体，而以前我们非常专注，我们对自己做的事情有明确的标准。但如果你是为国王的加冕礼身份工作，那当然会要求一种非常不同的方法，而不是我们设计 iMac 使用说明产品时会采用的方法。所以我认为这就是你说的。是的，我认为这真的是我们在解决的问题。

I think it's a lovely observation. Yeah. I think it's nearly six years ago that I left Apple. And my goal was to build the most extraordinary creative team I possibly could. And we're about 50 or 60 people. Many of the designers I've worked with for decades and decades, which means I worked with them at Apple. But it's a very diverse team. So it's a team of industrial designers, graphic designers, user interface designers, architects, typographers, musicians, sound designers. And I think perhaps what you're referring to is that our usefulness, or the people that we're collaborating with, is a very diverse group now, where before we were very focused and we had a clear criteria for what we were doing. But if you're working for the king on his coronation identity, that of course would demand a very different approach than the one we would have taken if we were designing instructional products for how to use an iMac. So I think that's what you're saying. Yeah, I think it's really what the problem is that we're addressing.

你谈了很多关于设计的目的，以及设计对接收者、用户、消费者的影响。现在人们普遍担忧和猜测智能手机和互联网对注意力的影响，以及是否对儿童、青少年，甚至我们所有成年人产生不良影响。还有关于 AI 是否会改变教育方式、学校里的作弊等问题。我们创造的所有这些技术都有潜在的双面性。作为一个显然认真对待并深入思考其全面影响的人，你如何看待可能的危害？

So you're talking a lot about the purpose of design and the effect that design has on the recipient, on the user, on the consumer. There's widespread concern and speculation about the effects of smartphones and the internet on attention spans, and whether it has adverse effects on kids or teens, or maybe all of us, including adults. There are also questions over whether AI changes how education works, cheating in school, and so on. All these technologies we create have a potential double-sidedness. As someone who clearly takes seriously and thinks seriously about the full effects, how do you think about the possible harms?

是的，我认为在创新时，当然会有意想不到的后果。你希望大多数是令人愉快的惊喜。我深度参与的一些产品，其意外后果远非令人愉快。我的观点是，即使没有意图，仍然需要承担责任。这让我深感沉重。我认为特别困难的是，传统上，当你审视创新时，并没有什么新东西。几个月前，我和 Patrick 谈到英国工业革命时期的一些建筑。有像维多利亚时代的泵站这样的例子。想象一下，污水曾经自由地流淌在街道上，然后突然之间，在人类存在的整个历史中，污水被悄无声息、可预测且持续地挡在街道之外。实现这一目标的机器被安置在教堂般的建筑里。这太神奇了。这些巨大的技术变革对社会的影响有着令人难以置信的先例。工业革命在 19 世纪中叶，尤其是在英国，是一个意义深远的重大事件。我认为最具挑战性的是，当时社会有时间停下来思考正在发生的事情。有时间去构建结构，无论是基础设施还是社会框架，来尝试吸收和应对这些变化。而极具挑战性的是，我们移动得太快，讨论来得太晚。除非有……我的意思是，我觉得 AI 令人鼓舞的一点是，关于 AI 的讨论很少不涉及适当的安全担忧。我更担心的是，多年来，关于社交媒体的讨论一直存在，而我当时非常担心社交媒体，但根本没有讨论。一个甚至不被谈论的问题的隐蔽挑战总是更令人担忧。所以我认为变化的速度是危险的。即使你的意图是无辜的，如果你参与了产生不良后果的事情，你需要承担责任。这种责任感个人驱动了我正在做的很多工作，这些工作目前我还不能谈论，但期待将来某个时候能够谈论。

Yeah, I think when innovating, of course, there will be unintended consequences. You hope that the majority will be pleasant surprises. Certain products that I've been very involved with had some unintended consequences that were far from pleasant. My issue is that even though there was no intention, there still needs to be responsibility. And that weighs on me heavily. I think what has been particularly difficult is that traditionally, when you look at innovation, there's nothing new. Patrick and I were talking months ago about some of the architecture associated with the industrial revolution in England. There are examples like the Victorian pumping stations. Imagine this idea that sewage used to flow freely down the streets, and then suddenly, for all of humanity's existence, sewage was silently, predictably, and consistently kept from streets. The machines that achieved this were housed in cathedral-like structures. It's amazing. There's an incredible precedent for these huge technological changes impacting society. The industrial revolution was a profoundly significant occurrence in the mid-1800s, certainly in the UK. The thing that I think is so challenging is that there was time for society to stop and consider what was happening. There was time for structure, whether that was infrastructure or social frameworks, to try and assimilate and deal with these shifts. What's been very challenging is that we are moving so fast, the discussion comes far too late. Unless there is... I mean, the thing that I find encouraging about AI is that it's very rare for there to be a discussion about AI without appropriate concerns about safety. What I was far more worried about was that for years and years, there would be discussions about social media, and I was extremely concerned about social media, but there was no discussion whatsoever. The insidious challenge of a problem that's not even talked about is always more concerning. So I think the rate of change is dangerous. Even if you're innocent in your intention, if you're involved in something that has poor consequences, you need to own it. That ownership personally has driven a lot of what I've been working on that I can't talk about at the moment, but I look forward to being able to talk about at some point in the future.

你提到了维多利亚时代的泵站。历史上哪个时期、哪个地方的设计最好？

You mentioned the Victorian pump station. Which place and time in history had the best design?

哦，这是个好问题。我不敢回答，但我确实认为工业革命时期发生的事情是我目前绝对着迷的。作为 Love 团队的一员，我们一直在做研究。我有幸与一位名叫 Jamaima 的了不起的作家合作，我想她今天下午可能在这里。她一直在做大量研究，无论是关于实物还是社会后果。因为我认为设计远不止是物体，所以我认为，例如，英国有两家公司真正源于贵格会。一家叫吉百利，另一家叫 Fries。都在伯明翰，对吧？我想它们在中部地区。但有趣的是，经营这些公司的人也设计了住房。你不只是设计一个放卧室的地方；住房意味着城镇，这意味着公民责任感。当然，这是合适的，因为人们正在迁移。工业革命不仅是历史上第一次大规模制造，而且是从土地到城市的大规模迁移，这是前所未有的。所以我只是认为，当我们谈论这些巨大的转变时，我们当然都会紧张和担心，但我们可以借鉴一些令人鼓舞的范例。就在吉百利和 Fries 之后，我想费城有好时，也有非常相似的方法和关注。我对那个具体例子了解较少，但我喜欢创新是文化的、政治的，通常也是精神的，并体现在建筑中。

Oh, that's such a good question. I wouldn't dare to answer, but I do think that what happened in the industrial revolution I am just absolutely obsessed with at the moment. As a team at Love, we've been doing research. I'm lucky enough to work with this amazing writer called Jamaima, who I think might be here this afternoon. She's been doing a bunch of research on whether it's physical objects or social consequences. And because I see design as much more than objects, I think for example, there were two companies in England that really were born out of the Quakers. One was called Cadbury's, and the other was called a company called Fries. Both in Birmingham, right? I think they were in the Midlands. But what was so interesting was that the people who ran these companies also designed the housing. And you don't just design a place to put bedrooms; housing meant towns, which meant this sense of civic responsibility. And of course, that was appropriate because people were moving. The industrial revolution was not just mass manufacturing for the first time in history, but it was this huge movement from the land to cities, which had never happened before. So I just think that generally when we talk about these huge shifts, of course we all get nervous and worried, but there are wonderfully encouraging prototypes that we can look to. And just after Cadbury and Fries, there was Hershey's in Philadelphia, I think, with a very similar approach and concern. I know less about that specific example, but I love it when the innovation is cultural, political, very often spiritual, and manifest in buildings.

你现在很少公开演讲，所以非常感激你能来。我们正在参加一个可编程金融基础设施会议。对于基础设施领域的人，或者像 Stripe 这样的企业，也许 Stripe 可以代表其他企业，这些企业表面上不应该像消费电子公司那样强烈关注设计，那么具有 Stripe 这种特征的企业为什么应该如此重视设计呢？

You speak in public very rarely now, so of course very grateful that you're here. We're at a programmable financial infrastructure conference. How and why should people in the infrastructure domain, or for businesses like Stripe, which maybe can stand in for other businesses where ostensibly one ought not care intensely about design in the way that a consumer electronics company ought to, why should a business with the characteristics that Stripe has care so much?

嗯，如果 Stripe 不这样做，Stripe 就不会是 Stripe，你也不会坐在这里。所以，我全身的每一根骨头都这么认为。

Well, if Stripe didn't, Stripe wouldn't be Stripe, and you wouldn't be sat here. So, I every bone in my body.

我真心相信，如果我们想作为物种的一员参与其中，我们其实别无选择。我认为关心彼此是一种义务和责任。弗洛伊德说过一句很棒的话：一切不过是爱和工作。工作和爱。仅此而已。所以我们花很多时间工作。如果我们选择把时间花在工作上而不关心他人，我认为不仅他人会受苦，我们自己也会受苦。我认为那是一种腐蚀性的存在。所以我认为，如果我们能实践和表达对他人的关心与关怀，这不仅是责任，更是一种特权。我不会那样划分我的存在，想着这是戴着商业帽子，或者我只是约翰尼。

I truly believe that if we want to participate as members of the species, we actually don't have a choice. I think it's an obligation and a responsibility to care for each other. And Freud said a great thing: all there is is love and work. Work and love. That's all there is. So we spend a lot of time working. And if we elect to spend our time working without caring about other people, I think not only do other people suffer, but I think we suffer. I think that's a corrosive existence. So I see it not only as a responsibility but truly a privilege if we get to practice and express our concern and care for one another. I don't carve my existence up in that way, thinking this is with my commercial hat on or I'm just Johnny.

就此，非常感谢你参加我们的节目。

On that note, thank you so much for joining us.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.